Prior to the great wave of rape reforms starting in the 1970s, rape advocates reported, with seemingly infinite invention, that women were too scared, too embarrassed, too certain of its futility to report their own rapes. The sexual grievance industry insisted that rape was underreported, and that reforms were needed to do justice to countless women who suffered in silence the brutal indignity of rape. So we kowtowed to the sexual grievance industry to solve “the problem.”

First, we adopted laws that eliminated the requirement of corroboration, which de facto served to flip the old law on its head: now,women don’t need any corroboration of their claims, but men and boys are arrested based solely on even the far-fetched say-so of any woman or girlif they can’t produce corroborating evidence of their innocence.
That wasn’t enough, they said. So we adopted rape shield laws that forbade almost any evidence of the accuser’s prior sexual history with persons other than the accused, a rule that resulted in innumerable innocent men and boys being sent to prison for alleged rapes that never occurred.

That wasn’t enough, they said. So we adopted laws that eliminated the requirement of force, and innocent men and boys who misunderstood the acquiescence of a woman were sent to prison.

That wasn’t enough, they said. So we enacted laws that eliminated the mens rea requirement for rape. Historically, in a rape prosecution, the guilty defendant must have had the intention to have intercourse with a woman without her consent. Too stringent, said the sexual grievance industry, and the requirement was lightened or dropped altogether.

That wasn’t enough, they said. So we enacted laws (in the UK and a handful of US states) that legally forbade naming rape accusers. In the US, the news agencies and outlets have, by common consensus, agreed not to name rape accusers. The mere allegation of rape by the anonymous female, without any other evidence and no matter how far-fetched, invites a man’s name to be splashed all over the newspaper, TV, radio and Internet for the world to titillate at the details of his humiliation.

That wasn’t enough, they said. So we enacted laws that lengthened and even eliminated statutes of limitations for rape, and now, men are sometimes accused of and charged with alleged rapes that occurred 20, 30, 40 or more years after they supposedly occurred, effectively foreclosing the accused from mounting a meaningful defense because the evidence of their innocence has long disappeared.

The right to be a father

A very feeling movie, about men who are forbidden to see their kids. The movie is quite tame, it does not even mention that men of course have to pay half their income in exchange for not being allowed to see the kid.

The final version of the documentary about the discrimination against fathers in custody cases, and the mayhem it causes in our societies.
Produced by Sara Sivesson, Jerry Wallén, Sandra Atas and Oskar Krantz at the John Bauer high school in Sweden. The film was made as an entry in a Amnesty International contest regarding human rights.

Rumors are that women’s groups protested the movie and Amnesty International thus did not allow the movie in their contest. Another example of the amazing clout feminists wield to manipulate institutions to act in the feminist interest, making special rules and exceptions for feminist issues that the institution would never make for any other issues.

Amnesty sponsored a film competition, but when some finalists produced a film that angered feminists, the film was pulled from Amnesty’s YouTube site. Amnesty denies that pressure from an Uppsala women’s shelter was responsible for suppressing the film, but the shelter itself is gloating about its political clout.

The film, created by four high school students and titled, The Right To Be a Father, is a powerful depiction of how children are taken from their fathers by Sweden’s feminist family courts. Separating children from their fathers is not only a bedrock principle of the war against “patriarchy,” but also the bread-and-butter of the lucrative child custody industry, so it is not surprising that the sisterhood would come down hard on the heresy that feminists violate human rights.

The film was nominated for the final stage of the competition. Amnesty posted it on YouTube, and the creators were invited to the film gala in Gothenburg. “But our film was never shown at the festival, and the day after it also disappeared from Amnesty’s YouTube channel,” says Sara Sivesson, one of the creators. [. . . ]

The power of feminists is awe inspiring.
Feminists conquered and brainwashed the minds of lawmakers, police, press, the United Nations.

And people are not even aware of the sweeping changes feminists did, to encroach upon men’s rights, men’s well being, freedom. How much terror feminists managed to sow with teenage sex and child porn witch hunts. This sounds exaggerated? Please read on.

The feminist social manipulation skill superiority hypothesis

More provocatively it could be called “feminist cunningness hypothesis”, female evolutionary cunningness hypthesis, …… Any more naming suggestions?

Hypothesis: Females are vastly superior in social manipulation skills

In evolution, everything is result of an evolutionary arms race. (cheetah and gazelle’s running skills, bacteria vs. our bodily defense system, …) Skills and capacities get honed over time, to solve evolutionary tasks. Women, in evolutionary time, had the hard task to convince a much stronger man to assume his paternal role and take care of her offspring (which might be his, or even just his cuckold offspring). In any argument, men had clear superiority with 2 powerful weapons

economical superiority: men were the hunters, they had the meat, they also could defend and own territory

physical superiority: men could always win an argument by brute force, by simple violence.

So to achieve some kind of evolutionary long term equilibrium, women must have developed some weapeons to counter men’s economical & physical power. What weapons could they have?

Social manipulation: gossiping among women, ganging up together against the common enemy, making intrigues, badmouthing a man, destroying his reputation, manipulating the opinion of other men (and women).

Women would actually need the skills to win over other men to defend the female agenda. In order to counter men’s physical superiority, women needed to be better then men at these social manipulation skills. They could not confront men clearly straight on, or else men could resort to the big stick argument. They would have to “con” men into doing what is in women’s interest, without men noticing.

Women would have to manipulate epecially skillfully, when it has to do with reproductive success, with getting men to provide for them and their kids, with men staying away from other women.

So the historical stone age balance of power is:

Nowadays, men surrendered their physical and economical power. Women maintained and expanded their verbal manipulative social power

Men surrendered both their advantages. Winning an argument with physical violence became criminalized. Women got to earn their own money, plus they get the government to collect pension money and child support from fathers that must pay up but have no say over how their money is being used. So most of the male power advantage waned.

Mass media and the internet even increased the verbal manipulative power of women beyond what they had in the evolutionary EEA, 50 000 years ago.
This would explain womens total win on all fronts. They started winning when they outlawed bigamy, made it a crime for consensual adults to engange in marriage with several partners, and now are curtailing the rights to have consensual sex for pay, with adolescents, take one’s own photograph and doing DNA tests on one’s own children.

Anecdotal and other Evidence

It is self evident that women must have developed some skills to counter the obvious male physical superiority.

Feminism as middle aged womens trade union to promote their selfish reproductive interest, even their plain interest in an easy life, trying to curb men’s access to more attractive or cheaper competitors.

I was wondering:

Why and with which methods do the feminist trade unions score such resounding victories

how do feminists convince everyone else to promote their goals?

And why are they winning the war on all fronts with absolute resounding victory?

there must be a special evolutionary skill how feminists manage to convince male law makers to support their warped feminist “women studies” logic and distract from the egalitarian goal of creating “men’s studies” and “men’s rights” (Feminist arguments against prostitution debunked)

the feminist movement’s main goal is to reduce male choice in female partners, to force men to dedicate their lives to unattractive, high spending, ruinously expensive feminist sex partners.

I add to this my hypothesis

The balance of power between men and women tilted in favor of women because

Men mostly stopped using physical & economical power,

women maintained their superior social manipulation power and thus,

world-wide, women are biasing laws totally in their favor in clear detriment of men

In evolutionary times (EEA, environment of evolutionary adaptedness), males had superior physical strength, fighting skills, and economical power as meat providing hunters.

Females, to defend their interest, had to use social skills, social manipulation, shaming, intrigue, cunningness trying to counter male physical superiority (anyone got research links on that?)

Now males surrendered the advantages of physical strength, even of economic strength. Suddenly, in the last half century, in the male-female conflicts of interest, all the female agendas win in politics. Feminists hide their agenda behind absurd warped arguments, shaming, willful misuse of language,

Feminists argue that prostitution is dangerous, unhealty, unpleasant, demeaning, not a free choice. These arguments that can be brought against menial jobs, professional boxing, military service. Personally, I think that spending one’s life fixing up people’s teeth, staring into smelly mouths all day long, is demeaning. And going to a war that one is opposed to, this is like a year long repeated rape.

Feminist argument

Absurdity of feminist argumentation

Many feminists are strongly opposed to prostitution, as they see the practice as a form of violence against women, which should not be tolerated by society […]

Many men are strongly opposed to military service, as they see this practice as a form of violence against men, which should not be tolerated by society.

Military service often is involuntary, and desertion punished by execution.

These feminists argue that, in most cases, prostitution is not a conscious and calculated choice.

{Street sweeping, toilet cleaning, professional boxing, panhandling, begging, robbing, military service} in most cases, are not a conscious and calculated choice.
Getting a husband that pays spousal support for the rest of his life is a much better choice.

Most women who become prostitutes do so because they were forced or coerced by a pimp or by human trafficking, or, when it is an independent decision, it is generally the result of extreme poverty and lack of opportunity, or of serious underlying problems, such as drug addiction, past trauma (especially child sexual abuse) and other unfortunate circumstances.

{Panhandling and begging,robbing} may be caused by childhood traumas, abuse, drug addiction. {Street sweeping, toilet cleaning, professional boxing} are usually the result of extreme poverty or caused by unfortunate circumstances.

Furthermore, feminists simply deny the existence of cases of rich well off prostitutes. See

These feminists point out that women from the lowest socioeconomic classes—impoverished women, women with a low level of education, women from the most disadvantaged racial and ethnic minorities—are overrepresented in prostitution all over the world.

Let us point out that women/men from the lowest socioeconomic classes—impoverished women/men, women/men with a low level of education, women/men from the most disadvantaged racial and ethnic minorities—are overrepresented in {Street sweeping, toilet cleaning, professional boxing, military service, panhandling, begging, robbing} all over the world.

“If prostitution is a free choice, why are the women with the fewest choices the ones most often found doing it?” (MacKinnon, 1993)[9

“If {Street sweeping, toilet cleaning, professional boxing, military service, panhandling, begging, robbing} is a free choice, why are the women/men with the fewest choices the ones most often found doing it?” (MacKinnon, 1993)[9

why do feminists get away with such drivel and even get academic recognition? Even men kind of buy this ridiculous feminist BS.

Most prostitutes are in a very difficult period of their lives and most want to leave this occupation.

Most {Street sweeping, toilet cleaning, professional boxing, panhandling, begging, robbing} professionals are in a very difficult period of their lives and most want to leave this occupation. Except highly successful professional boxers, and highly successful prostitutes, whose existence the feminists duly ignore.

Catharine MacKinnon argues that “In prostitution, women have sex with men they would never otherwise have sex with.

We argue that “In {Street sweeping, toilet cleaning, professional boxing, panhandling, begging, robbing} , women/men clean streets they otherwise never would clean, fight men they otherwise would not fight.

The money thus acts as a form of force, not as a measure of consent. It acts like physical force does in rape.” [11]

The money thus acts as a form of force, not as a measure of consent. It acts like physical force does in slavery.”

Anti-prostitution feminists argue that prostitution is a practice which leads to serious negative long term effects for the prostitutes, such as severe trauma, stress, depression, anxiety, self medication through alcohol and drug abuse, eating disorders and a greater risk for self harm and suicide

Prize fighting, boxing, heading a ball in soccer leads to serious long term health effects, potential brain damage.
Being a high executive, manager, causes severe long term consequences like stress, heart attack, obesity.

It is amazing how feminist women get away with manipulating language, distorting facts, and got their agenda all the way up to the United Nations. And thanks to their deceitful language most men somehow get swayed by their warped arguments.

Term

common definition

feminist extension & re-definition

provocative re-definition

victim

somebody or something harmed; somebody duped

$ 400 an hour luxury prostitute “victims”, that earn much more then most of their customers

the prostitute’s customer is the victim of his raging hormones that make him spend too much money

selling a body

sale is a final one time transaction that changes ownership. Like selling into slavery.

“sale” is a one hour “rental” to provide an hour of sexual services.

A construction helper sells his body for money in exchange for often unhealthy work; a fire fighter, a soldier, a full contact figher sells his body, risiking his health and his life.

A journalist, physician, engineer sells his brain to provide services to people.